Posted on 01/11/2013 4:44:07 AM PST by voicereason
On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court scheduled a birther case brought on by Orly Taitz which calls into question Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to be president of the United States. Dr. Taitz, a lawyer from Santa Margarita, Calif., also made the announcement on her website on Jan. 9. As of this writing, major news networks such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, and NBC have yet to report on the high court's decision to review Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to hold political office in the United States or any of its territories. The case is identified as Edward Noonan, et al., v. Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State. On Feb. 15, all nine justices will hear arguments on whether Obama used forged government documents and fake identification in order to get elected as commander-in-chief. Edward Noonan, et al., contend that if Obama had been ineligible to run in 2008, other Democratic candidates should have replaced him on the presidential ballot. Additionally, electoral votes from states such as California that went towards Obama should have been deemed null and void. Continued at source....
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
To start:
http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2011/06/24/still-here-trying-to-teach-pigs-to-sing/
http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2011/07/09/we-get-letters-some-birthers-want-it-both-ways/
From the last link:
“You can contend all you want. That doesn’t mean it is true. Here are the two letters superimposed on each other. Letter #3 is in black. Letter #143 is in red.”
“Are there differences? Yes. As we said there would be. Are there “stylistic differences?” No.”
“Furthermore the large “R” is the two “R’s” in Irey’s chart as given. The smaller “R’s” are those in what would be a comparable 12 point size, which would most likely have been the font size used. (If not, it would have been smaller, not larger)”
“As anyone can see the differences are within what one would expect due to the scan errors alone, much less the “noise” errors due to the background, etc.”
Here is his link to the two “R”s referenced in the above snippet.
http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Irey-R-ROH2.jpg
In addition Paul Irey was admited as an expert in typesetting (the BC is not a typeset document) in the Indiana court. The judge in the hearing cut short the cross examination of Mr. Irey (unheard of in normal court proceedings) and ended the hearing. Judge Reid shortly after that dismissed the case and all of the testimony from the hearing was stricken from the record.
You said: “ The judge in the hearing cut short the cross examination of Mr. Irey (unheard of in normal court proceedings) and ended the hearing. Judge Reid shortly after that dismissed the case and all of the testimony from the hearing was stricken from the record.”
What did the judge give as his reason or legal justification for these “unheard of” actions of his?
She gave her rationale in her opinion.
“Mr. Irey, over the objections of the State Defendants, was found to be an expert in type-setting only and was accepted as an expert on that topic only. See also Hannan v. Pest Control Services, Inc. 734 N.E. 2d. 674, 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (an expert in one field of expertise cannot offer opinion in other fields absent a requisite showing of competency in that field”). Further, plaintiffs offered no evidence that the principles upon which he was testifying are reliable or used by others in the field or peer reviewed in any way, shape, or form. See Ind. R. Evid. 702(b) (expert testimony only admissible where the proponent demonstrates that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rest are reliable”); Steward v. State, 652 N. E. 2d 490, 498 (Ind. 1995).”
Judge Reid later writes,
“Plaintiffs provided no competent expert opinions as to the authenticity of President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth. See Ind. R. Evid. 702(b) (expert testimony only admissible where the proponent demonstrates that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rest are reliable”); Steward v. State, 652 N. E. 2d 490, 498 (Ind. 1995).7”
Footnote 7:
“At most, Mr. Irey’s admissible testimony is that he reviewed a copy of what had been downloaded from the White House site and that within that single document he noticed differences between the sizes of some of the letters, difference of spacing between some of the letters, and a while “haloing” around certain letters. It is unclear whether “expert” testimony was needed for such observations. All other testimony provided by Mr. Irey, however, is hearsay, irrelevant, not based on personal knowledge, and not scientifically reliable; thus it is inadmissible. Ind. R. Evid. 401, 402, 602, 702(b), 802, 805. As for the demonstrative summaries he presented, again, these were admitted for a limited purpose and do not prove that the Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery or that President Obama is not constitutionally qualified for office.”
I assume that during cross examination Judge Reid had heard enough and there was little in Irey’s testimony that was admissible.
What experts testified that the PDF image WAS authentic? To believe that, the judge surely HAD to have an expert in authentic documents testify to that, right? She wouldn’t presume to make that call on her own expertise, given that she has no knowledge of these things, would she?
What credible expert testified to the genuineness of the document?
And they better have better credentials than Alvin Onaka, the one person who has the legal responsibility and authority to tell the truth about Obama’s record after viewing the whole file himself - and who confirmed that the White House image is NOT a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. He also confirmed that there are no birth facts for Obama that he can verify as having happened that way.
What expert has ever been presented who has better credentials, first-hand knowledge, and legal authority to testify as a witness than Alvin Onaka?
Mr. Irey, over the objections of the State Defendants, was found to be an expert in type-setting only and was accepted as an expert on that topic only.
She doesn't say who made this finding or how she came to the determination that an expert on typesetting would not have acceptable expertise regarding an electronic document that had to be either manually or digitally typeset.
Further, plaintiffs offered no evidence that the principles upon which he was testifying are reliable or used by others in the field or peer reviewed in any way, shape, or form.
The law that the judge quotes doesn't say that expertise needs to be based on principles that "peer reviewed" and as far as reliability, this judge contradicts herself because she claims later, "It is unclear whether “expert” testimony was needed for such observations." IOW, this judge can't expect a standard of reliability when she doesn't exactly understand the content material ... either that or she's simply come up with an arbitrary list of excuses not to accept this witness's expertise. The law she cites is extremely generic and does very little to back up her "rationale." She cites several sections from Indiana's Rules of Evidence:
Rule 401. Definition of “Relevant Evidence”
“Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible
All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the United States or Indiana constitutions, by statute not in conflict with these rules, by these rules or by other rules applicable in the courts of this State. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.
The judge give no direct reason why observations about the typeset on Obama's alleged BC would be irrelevant testimony, especially when the plaintiffs are challenging the authenticity of the alleged document(s). The judge next cites rule 602:
Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. A witness does not have personal knowledge as to a matter recalled or remembered, if the recall or remembrance occurs only during or after hypnosis. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony of the witness. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
The judge doesn't say that Mr. Irey is contending that he has personal knowledge. He is testifying as a technical expert and he is allowed under Rule 703 (as specified in this section of the law), to give opinions ... a rule that the judge fails to cite. Here's what Rule 703 says:
Rule 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts
The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. Experts may testify to opinions based on inadmissible evidence, provided that it is of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.
This says the facts may be PERCEIVED by the expert at or before the hearing. It only says the the opinion must be "reasonably relied upon by experts in the field" IF the EVIDENCE is inadmissable. Now unless she's saying Obama's alleged BC is inadmissable, under this section, there's no requirement for the expert's opinion to be "reliable" "to others in the field" in the manner in which this judge is requiring.
She does cite rule 702(b) ... but inexplicably skips right past 702(a), which says:
(a) If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
The judge already admits Mr. Irey is an expert in one field of expertise. The law does NOT require the high standard that THIS judge demands. Note above it does not require peer-reviewed scientific expertise but can be "technical" expertise or "other specialized knowledge" based on skill, experience, training, etc. If this is a technical field rather than a scientific field, then 702(b) doesn't apply as a limitation or requirement. IOW, this judge is making an arbitrary and baseless decision to reject the expert's testimony by applying an unreasonably high scientfici standard, and this is after admitting she doesn't really know if expertise is required or not. The expert under 702(a) doesn't have to be offering peer-reviewed scientific technique but simply offering assistance to the judge to help understand the evidence and help in determining the facts.
Rules 802 and 805 are about hearsay, but at this point, this is only cited because this judge has arbitrarily rejected the expert's claimed expertise with her artificially high standard.
I assume that during cross examination Judge Reid had heard enough and there was little in Irey’s testimony that was admissible.
I assume that during cross examination, the Judge was looking for an easy excuse to bail herself out of making an unpopular judgment, and this was a convenient and generally untouchable "rationale" from a judicial standpoint.
Now, here's another part of the rules of evidence this judge seems to have conveniently overlooked. There's a challenge to the authenticity of Obama's birth record. Under the IRE, his birth record would be "self-authenticating" unless that record is NOT made available to the challenging party for inspection:
... A record so certified is not self-authenticating under this subsection unless the proponent makes an intention to offer it known to the adverse party and makes it available for inspection sufficiently in advance of its offer in evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to challenge it.
Has Obama EVER made his alleged LFBC available for inspection to an "adverse party"??? The law says that an adverse party need only show that the source of the document is "untrustworthy." With both Obama and the HI DOH, that would be a cinch.
The defense is not required to put on any witnesses and in this case chose not to (Obama was not a party to this suit). The plaintiffs presented the pdf and two “experts” to show it was a forgery but one (Feleicito Papa) was ruled not to be an expert and his testimony was disallowed and the other (Paul Irey) was only recognized as an expert in typesetting.
There is a presumption that the pdf is an image of the certified BC and will be considered authentic until someone produces evidence that it is not. Dr. Onaka has never testified one way or the other in court. And probably never will. But should it ever happen that someone does present credible evidence that pdf is some type of forgery, then we might actually see one of the certified copies in a court. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
As a longtime interested person as to many facets of Obama’s eligibility and life history I believe Dr. Taitz has done a tremendous and remarkable job of compiling case documents against the eligibility of Obama being POTUSA. She has taken an unjustified and unseemly beating and avoidance,in my opinion, from many people including numerous so called Obama critics in the Republican Party who are always biting and barking at Obama like chained guard dogs about Obama’s unconstitutional actions. I hope that oaths have meaning to some if not all Justices. However, I have a gut feeling that Roberts put this on the agenda as a closer for any further actions against Obama’s eligibility. If Dr. Taitz can get her case to a full court hearing she will have done so much more than our sniveling Congresspersons for the Nation and It’s Constitution.
You don’t have to FReepmail me to curse me out. On birther threads, you can say anything you want to me and get away with it. I won’t report abuse, neither will others, and the mods will pretty much stay out of it unless you cross a serious line like threatening my life or something. So have it.
Full Faith and Credit only requires one state to recognize the records of another if that record has the certifying marks of genuineness from the issuing office. A PDF has no raised seal; this is not admissible as prima facia evidence of anything. There is NO presumption of legality without the certifying marks - which by virtue of Hawaii law have to be a RAISED seal, and a PDF cannot have that.
It’s absolutely ridiculous that a court would even consider a supposed “vital record” that isn’t in 3D when the certifying marks have to be in 3D. There is no legal way that a judge can say that a PDF of a vital record is genuine, and there is no presumption that it is. If the accusation is that the PDF is a forgery, then the evidence for it being a forgery have to be weighed against the evidence that it’s not. A genuine seal would be a good piece of evidence that it’s not a forgery. That’s never been presented. Nothing that would truly attest to the genuineness has ever been offered, and now the HDOH itself has said that the WH image is NOT a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. That’s pretty convincing evidence against the White House image’s genuineness.
The judiciary in the US is a sick, sick joke.
God will have the last laugh, though I doubt He will enjoy it much at all.
“It’s absolutely ridiculous that a court would even consider a supposed “vital record” that isn’t in 3D when the certifying marks have to be in 3D.”
Maybe the plaintiffs need to stop entering the pdf as evidence.
Recusal is a function of natural justice?
IANAL - so I don’t know if the US has a similar legal concept. The Supreme Court has its own rules.
The plaintiffs have a right to enter what has been “reported” in the “public record,” but as butter pointed out, that doesn’t mean there’s a presumption of authenticity for a document that still statutorily requires certifying elements. Thanks to you, we now see that there’s at least one state law that says the plaintiffs have a legal right to inspect the actual document if they can show that the issuing agency has treated the record in an untrustworthy manner. As for Obama’s records, this would be a cinch. There’s no credible sign of the legally required raised seal. The authorities in Hawaii have given conflicting accounts about the alleged certificate. One says it’s half-handwritten and another says something was only “written down” in the archives, and another refused to verify the facts as stated by two different applicants for letters of verification. We don’t need excuses for Obama. It’s time to expect full disclosure of any and all records on file in Hawaii. There’s a reason why his own counsel does not make any attempt to submit any such records into evidence and I’m pretty sure we all know why.
“if they can show that the issuing agency has treated the record in an untrustworthy manner.”
All you need now are some real experts and some evidence and have at it.
Your own quote showed that the judge acknowledged this was a REAL expert with evidence. She held him to higher standards that aren’t actually prescribed under the law. We learned this thanks to you. What we need is an honest judge who will follow the law and uphold the Constitution.
I think you misread it. She said he was an expert in typesetting (the pertinent information on the BC is not typeset, it was written using a typewriter) and that his methods were not based on any scientific method.
Someone like this would make it through any legal challenge:
http://www.qdewill.com/cv.html
This might help explain it:
MS. TAITZ: Fifty years of experience as a sheriff.
THE COURT: One thing that the federal courts must do is that they must act as gatekeepers for people who are claiming to be experts. That’s the Daubert case, which is a very well-known case. And people can’t simply say I am an expert in a particular area because they want to be an expert. They have to be tested by others who may look to them and say this is, in fact, a tried-and-true method. You have experience. You have expertise. And to simply say that a person has 50 years of experience doing a particular job does not make that person an expert.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Grinols-Transcript-of-01.03.2013-hearing.pdf
Thanks for proving my point for me. I already said she acknowledged he was an expert. Your previous comment was to get an expert. And thanks for further pointing out the judge's stupidity for thinking a typesetter should have to have methods based on a "scientific method."
Someone like this would make it through any legal challenge:
Sure, if a physical copy of a document was ever presented in court. Obama, however, graduated from law school MCL and isn't stupid enough to incriminate himself that easily.
Wait a minute, that CV you posted had a similar claim with a number of years of experience. Are you suddenly arguing against yourself??? But, regardless, this particular quote isn’t following the law I cited earlier that does NOT prescribe a gatekeeping function and allows technical, not just scientific, experts who are there to help the judge understand the facts. And not every fact requires a scientific protocol. Second, it’s a deflection from the actual law that gives the plaintiff a right to inspect the actual document ... again, I showed the law that says this. We don’t need more excuses for judicial incompetence and/or unwarranted prejudice.
No, I already said this. Go back and re-read what I actually wrote. You're leaving out how the law does NOT require a "scientific" method for ALL expert witnesses. Why are you NOT wanting to acknowledge this??
Someone like this would make it through any legal challenge:
I debunked this already. This is a person whose CV relies a number of years of experience (which another example said doesn't prove expertise), and that at best, this person's testimony would only be useful if she was presented with a physical copy of the alleged birth certificate and we know Obama is too skeered to do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
